Wow! Such a good movie.

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

This film has a weak story built on two gimmicks. (There are additional gimmicks to the film, but I count two to the story as such.) The first is a sort of locked-room aspect to the murder mystery, with the topology turned inside-out. The second is hiding of one string of murders,by one perpetrator, within another string of murders by another perpetrator.But these two gimmicks are not themselves an hour's worth of story, and the story here built around them is not simply weak but incoherent.Now, I would here insert that I don't know that WIlliam Mack, given the story credit here, actually produced this story. He might have produced a very fine story, only to have it mauled by Columbia into the story used for this film.In any case, on top of the weak story was built a weak script. For example, it is ultimately revealed that the first victim of the second murderer was killed because of his suspicions towards about another person, but his actions concerning a third person are quite inconsonant with those suspicious. An effort is made to cast narrative suspicion on another character by having him express himself in implausible ways. A romantic triangle is sustained only by having the female lead repeatedly cheat on her fiancé. And some ostensible comedy is provided by having the one black character be inept, cowardly, and superstitious.Much of the acting in this film is actually quite good, in spite of the poor script. The clear exceptions would be the performance of Edwin Maxwell (which was like something out of a Dwain Esper production, and possibly exactly what the director asked of Maxwell), that of Lugosi (who seems to be just walking through the material), and that of Oscar Smith (who wasn't getting screen credit anyway, in spite of doing more than some of the actors who were).

I've read all sorts of comments about this film saying Lugosi doesn't do much in it and has a thankless role as a servant. Personally I don't think this is true. Lugosi is in fact a servant, and also a red herring of sorts, but unlike a lot of these roles he actually IS integral to the plot here and in fact pretty much solves the case! Critics like Maltin who attacked this film (Maltin gave it a BOMB) are way too harsh. Bear in mind Maltin gives nearly all of Lugosi's actually awful Monogram movies ** or so and none of those are even remotely as entertaining as Night of Terror.I really, really like this movie a lot. It has all sorts of things to recommend it if you are into the old dark house genre. Lugosi delivers a fun, trashed out of his mind performance. Wallace Ford is a really hilarious (and uncaring) reporter who dishes out the best wisecracks this side of Lee Tracy. It also has some truly insane things going on in the plot, from a guy burying himself alive in the backyard to a crazy maniac killing everyone in the neighborhood for no good reason.That's why I mentioned this as a proto slasher film, since The Maniac finishes with quite the body count for a 1933 film. The hilarious brilliance of it (which apparently eluded some critics) is that The Maniac is a killer but he's not even THE killer of the actual characters in the film. He's not a red herring since we see him kill a bunch of random people who aren't per se characters. In that respect it almost reminds me of something like Scary Movie, with the real killer here copying a serial killer that already exists.By all means check this film out on that Invisible Menace/Night of Terror double feature DVD. Forget about Menace since that is a really crappy and uninteresting Karloff movie (why the DVD is hyped around it instead of the vastly more amusing Night of Terror I have no idea). But Night of Terror is a must for Lugosi fans.

This Columbia "B" thriller features many of the typical 'old dark house' trappings (which proliferated throughout the late 20s up till the mid-30s) and is therefore quite predictable; still, the denouement is rather effective – and it's all capped by an amusing (if hammy) interpolation by the maniac killer of the main narrative, which sees him coming back to life to warn cinema patrons not to reveal the twist ending! A mere two years after his runaway success with Dracula (1931), the film already sees Bela Lugosi reduced to playing thankless roles because, even though he receives sole above-the-title billing here, the horror icon's presence constitutes a red herring and nothing more (the way he's made to intimidate his spiritualist wife during a séance proves especially pointless) and is further hindered by the unflattering Hindu attire (turban, gypsy earrings) he is saddled with throughout. Frankly, after having seen several films of Lugosi's (and with a handful more coming up), I still can't make up my mind whether his unique (i.e. sluggish and heavily-accented) delivery of lines is an asset or a liability! To get back to the 'monster' of the film, again, his involvement results to be irrelevant to the central mystery (with an inheritance at stake, members of a wealthy family are getting bumped off one by one): familiar heavy-set character actor Edwin Maxwell is credited with playing the role, but he was unrecognizable behind the make-up. Lovely Sally Blane (who happens to be Loretta Young's sister!) and Wallace Ford (insufferable as the fast-talking reporter hero, a role he virtually reprised in a later Lugosi cheapie – THE APE MAN [1943]) provide the obligatory romantic interest; another requisite – and equally resistible – is the politically incorrect comedy relief supplied by the household's 'scaredy cat' black chauffeur. Given a somewhat harsh BOMB rating by Leonard Maltin, I knew not to expect much from the film – but, ultimately, it's a harmless way to kill 60 minutes or so…and, in any case, the script does come up with a handful of undeniably hilarious lines: when a delegation of scientists arrives at the mansion to assist to a dangerous experiment, the chauffeur remarks that they look like undertakers – later, when he sees these same men transport a coffin in which his current master is about to be buried alive, he observes that he had been right all along!; driven as much by jealousy as the promise of a scoop, Ford bursts into the household to see Blane – noticing four other hats in the parlor (belonging to the illustrious guests), he asks her whether she had been entertaining the Marx Bros.; when the bodies start piling up and the police is called on the scene, Ford offers his help but is told off by the investigating officer – however, on asking for the generalities of all the persons in the room, the response of one of the scientists comes in the form of an unpronounceable foreign name and, so, the befuddled cop gladly relinquishes the writing duties to the newspaperman!; still, my favorite bit is when a hand-cuffed Lugosi asks the detective guarding him if he can smoke, and the latter – with quite unwarranted hostility – snaps back "I don't care if you burn!"

I'm sorry I waited so long to see this film; for years I'd heard how poor it allegedly was, so I made the mistake of steering clear of it for far too long. It's nothing 'great,' but it certainly was fair enough and hit the spot with me for Halloween-time viewing. It's a murder mystery set in a creepy house with a decent share of horrific elements: a Mr. Hyde-like goon with a knife in top hat and cape called The Maniac stalks the grounds; a scientist experiments with suspended animation and getting himself buried alive; the otherworldly Bela Lugosi headlines as a peculiar household servant in a turban who's married to his eerily mystical wife. Add to the mix Wallace Ford (THE MUMMY'S HAND, THE MUMMY'S TOMB, THE APE MAN) and some occasional dashes of humor, and there are far worse ways to spend just over an hour. The wrap-up of this whodunit is satisfying, and there is a secret 'gag' ending that really delivers. ** out of ****